 |
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) revhyperion | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I've been pretty silent about this on my blog but I think it's time for me to speak out. California finally did the right thing... The Supreme Court of California judged that banning marriages based on sexual orientation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in California. Pretty clear-cut and straight-forward. But opponents are still trying to pass a ballot initiative to change the constitution of the state. That's the problem with California's ballot initiative law - even though the entire point of a Constitution is to establish law WHILE protecting minority rights - the mob mentality can go in and eliminate minority rights by just putting a proposition on the ballot. Now, here's the deal... Opponents to this say that "(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," (Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.) Then what is the correct way? The Legislature, right? Well California's legislature has passed a gay marriage bill, not one, but TWICE - and Arnold Schwartzenegger has vetoed it twice himself! So if it isn't the legislature, who's job it is to come up with laws, then who's job is it? Oh, I see.... it's the MOB MENTALITY POPULACE'S job to vote on divisive and heartfelt issues because they'll react from their fears - that's what we want. This is such utter and complete bullshit. If a judge ever rules something unconstitutional, then these republican/christian/hatemongers say they are legislating from the bench (um, no, they are just saying that "X" law is unlawful - that's their fucking job - TO JUDGE.) But if a judge goes in there and takes away civil liberties and rules in their favor, and starts defining the law in a more extensive way (which is the definition of being an activist judge) then they are ok with it. You know, the older I get, the more I dislike "christians". And I'm now starting to even get rid of the rule of exception - that there's always a good christian out there and not all of them are like this, blah blah blah. Nope... I'm pretty much convinced that modern christianity in NO WAY WHATSOEVER resembles or follows the message of Jesus Christ and that these people are merely hate-filled ignoramuses who want god's justification for their narrow-mindedness. I have no patience or understanding for them, and I think we should eliminate their churches' tax-free status because they are entering the political realm. In all likelihood, the constitutional amendment in California will pass - because we have a bunch of assholes in the backwoods here who are threatened by the thought of Tommy and Mike kissing - and the oppressive fascism that seems to be the trend of the decade, will continue. Tags: gay, politics
Current Mood: righteous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reddywhp | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been cranky-posting lately, here's my ' unicorn chaser', courtesy of icanhascheezburger. It's an oldie, but a goody. And there will be no perro jokes about it... And saying that there's a perro joke to be made here doesn't actually mean I'm making said joke... just acknowledging the potential... really.
more cat picturesIn the mean time, bullets! - MRI of shoulder all done, meeting with ortho on Tuesday...
- The first time ever that a doc told me "You're just gonna feel a little prick", and all I felt was just a little prick. Doc hit my shoulder with the lidocaine and then nothing.
- Having a numb shoulder pumped full of dye doesn't hurt, but still feels weird
- Spider Robinson does easily narrated stories... As I'm currently listening to Callahan's Crosstime Saloon
- omfg, Spider Robinson is an unrepentant, despicable punster. His punfull puntification has left my mind suspunded in a fog... So yeah, I like it.
Tags: books, fnord, health, humor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fd_midori | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"... one of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples." ".... the state’s assignment of a different name to the couple’s relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple’s relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled." "... Instead of presuming the validity of the statutes defining marriage and establishing domestic partnership, in effect the majority presumes them to be constitutionally invalid by characterizing domestic partnership as a “mark of second-class citizenship.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 118.) This judicial presumption contravenes the express intent of the Legislature to equalize the rights of spouses and domestic partners." excerpts from Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004). California Supreme Court opinions documentbut you know it's not "happily ever after" yet... Tags: civil rights, equality, legal rights, marriage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
giggly
chipper